lois lerner – Judicial Watchhttp://www.judicialwatch.org
Because no one is above the law!Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:14:52 +0000en-UShourly1Weekly Update: It’s amateur hour at Statehttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-amateur-hour-state/
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 22:24:24 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=weekly_update&p=90738Clinton Emails Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information The IRS Scandal Is Still a Scandal Clinton Emails Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information We continue to accumulate details of the communications abuses in the Hillary Clinton State Department, but after you read the following report pause and consider the big picture. For four years...

We continue to accumulate details of the communications abuses in the Hillary Clinton State Department, but after you read the following report pause and consider the big picture. For four years the inner workings of her department were porous to prying eyes. Is it just a coincidence that Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic efforts so often failed?

This week we released 1,617 new pages of documents revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.

The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

The emails are the 20th production of documents obtained in response to a court order in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit we filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). We sued after State failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

On September 11, 2009, the highly sensitive name and email address of the person giving the classified Presidential Daily Brief was included in an email forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account by State Department official Dan Fogerty. The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecured emails that were classified:

On June 18, 2009, Abedin sent classified informationsummarizing a June 18, 2009, “Middle East Breakfast” meeting between various senators, representatives and State Department officials, at which Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and George Mitchell briefed the congressmen with “an update on our discussions with the [Middle East] parties.”

On June 23, 2009, U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, who had his security clearance suspendedin 2000 for “possible sloppiness” in the handling of classified information, sent a memo containing classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The memo, written for Clinton, pertained to Indyk’s discussions with top Israeli officials:

Could I ask you to review the memo below that I wrote yesterday on my return from Israel? If you think it worthwhile, I’d be very grateful if you showed it to HRC (I have already shared it with Mitchell and Feltman). A confrontation with Bibi appears imminent. I’ve never been one to shy away from that, as she may know. But it has to be done carefully, and that doesn’t appear to be happening. And I’m concerned that she will be tarred with the same brush if this leads to a bad end. So I think she needs to make sure that the friction is productive. I’ve made some suggestions at the end of the memo

On August 1, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified informationfrom State Department official Richard Verma to her unsecure email account. The email from Senator Russ Feingold was sent to Hillary Clinton regarding her upcoming Africa trip.

On August 4, 2009, Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent classified informationabout discussions with Kuwaiti officials to Abedin’s unsecure email account. Feltman noted that the Kuwaitis felt a lunch they had with Obama was “chilly.” The discussions concerned Guantanamo as well as Kuwait’s treatment of detainees.

On November 1, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the UAE Rick Olson sent classified informationto Abedin’s unsecure email account. The email shows that Olsen was traveling with Hillary in the Middle East, and Abedin asked him to “work on a list of everything covered in the mbz [presumably Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi] meeting for Hillary.” Olson asks: “do you want it on this system (I can sanitize), or on the other system.” She replies: “This system easier. We are staying without class[ified] computers. Thx.”

On December 1, 2009, Abedin sent classified informationabout foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her unsecure email account. The email originated with State official Sean Misko who wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan that he first “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was resending.

On December 25, 2009, Abedin sent to her unsecure email account classified informationprepared by Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Francis Ricciardone concerning the Afghan elections.

On December 26, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual sent a memo to Clinton, which was found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained extensive classified information involving U.S. and Mexican counter-drug operations in Mexico.

On March 22, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified informationabout a telephone conversation between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

On May 24, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified informationabout the minutes of a State Department senior staff meeting regarding State Department officials’ meetings in Uganda.

Among Abedin’s unsecure email records is a document that is simply titled “NOTE” with the date September 12, 2010. The contents are entirely redacted as classified.

On January 28, 2011, Abedin sent Clinton an unsecure email containing classified informationrelating to a briefing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave.

On March 21, 2012, Clinton received a memo from State Department officials Joseph Yun and Derek Mitchell marked “Sensitive But Unclassified” and sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained classified informationabout elections in Burma.

Jake Sullivan emailed to Hillary’s unsecure email account classified informationin which Sullivan discussed the content of conversations with UK Prime Minister Gordon regarding “the situation” in Northern Ireland. The date of this email is not included on the document.

On April 8, 2012, Abedin sent classified informationto her unsecure email regarding a call sheet and an “Action Memo” for Clinton relating to a call with Malawi President Joyce Banda. On April 9, 2012, confidential assistant Monica Hanley again forwarded the classified information to Clinton’s unsecure email account.

On August 18, 2009, Hanley provided Abedin with laptop and fob (a physical device that provides a login code) logins and passwordsto log onto a laptop, as well as a secure State Department website at https://one.state.gov. Included were a PIN number and instructions on how to access her email from the secure State Department website. Abedin forwarded this information to her unsecure account.

(The FBI interviewed Hanley in its probe of Clinton’s email practices, and State’s Diplomatic Security staff reprimanded her after she left classified material behind in a Moscow hotel room. Hanley was the staffer tasked with finding BlackBerry phones for Clinton to use.)

On August 19, 2009, Hanley asked Abedin to call her and provide Abedin’s computer passwordso that she could download a UN document for Cheryl Mills from Abedin’s computer. Instead of calling Hanley, Abedin apparently provided the computer password in her unsecure reply email, saying, “Its [redacted].”

On April 17, 2009, Clinton aide Lona Valmoro emailed Clinton’s sensitive daily schedulefor April 18 to various Clinton Foundation officials, including Doug Band, Terry Krinvic and Justin Cooper. She also forwarded Clinton’s daily schedule for July 16 to numerous Clinton Foundation officials. She did the same thing on September 8, 2009. She did so again on January 10, January 14 and April 11, 2010.

The details of Hillary’s arrivalon November 18, 2009, in war-torn Kabul, Afghanistan, for the inauguration of President Karzai, were found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. Included were precise times of landing at Kabul Airport, the occupants of her vehicle, arrival and departure times at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, and meeting times with U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.

On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a XL Keystone lobbyist,sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking. Band forwarded the email to Abedin, saying, “Can u get him in?” Abedin replied: “Yes will get him in.” Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential

On July 16, 2009, Zachary Schwartz asked Band for help getting visas to travel to Cuba for a film production crew from Shangri La Entertainment. Band forwarded the requestto Abedin, telling her, “Please call zach asap on this. [Redacted.] Important.” Abedin responded, “I’ll call zach when we land in India.” Abedin concludes with “Enjoy. Cuba is complicated. Am sure you aren’t surprised to hear that.” Schwartz worked for Steve Bing, a mega-donor to the Clintons and owner of Shangri La Entertainment. Bing has reportedly donated $10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton personally $2.5 million a year to be an adviser to a green construction company Bing owned.

On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange “government appointments” for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.comaddress, forwarded the request to Abedin, “fyi.” Abedin responded to Duffy’s email, saying she would “follow up” with Duffy’s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.Abedin, using her huma@clintonmail.com address, later told Joyce, “Would like to get some more information and details so we can try to help.” Further along in the exchange, Joyce responds “We would also like some help in arranging meetings with some key govt officials in both locations, such as the Prime Minister of Singapore, and would appreciate any help you may be able to provide.”

On September 29, 2009, Abedin followed up with Duffy, telling him that “we are happy to assist with any and all meetings” and that she had “discussed you and your trip with our assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs,” suggesting that Duffy write the assistant secretary, Kurt Campbell. Duffy replied, “Thank you very much. I did connect with Kurt Campbell today.”

On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor and real estate developer Eddie Trump forwarded to “Dougie” Band a request for assistancefrom Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, “Can we get this done/mtg set.” As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for “public diplomacy.”

Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010. Clinton did speak to the Japan Society’s annual conference in 2011.

The emails also provide insight on the inner workings of the Clinton State Department, in particular her engagement with her staff.

In a May 19, 2009, “Global Press Conference” memo, Clinton was given in advance the “proposed questions” of four of the seven foreign reporters. Examples include: “What is the Obama administration’s view of Australian PM Rudd’s proposal to form an Asia-Pacific Community” and “Why can’t American drones not find, detect and destroy the insurgency supply line?”

In a document entitled “HRC Pakistan Notes” prepared for Clinton by her staff, Clinton apparently had to be reminded about all her trips to Pakistan and of “stories that you have told/remember.” Her reminder instructions include: “You loved Faisal mosque, and it was especially meaningful to have CVC [Chelsea] with you.” And: “Your first Pakistani friend was in College. She introduced you to Pakistani food and clothes.” And: “You have had lots of Pakistani and Pakistani American friends over the years. From Chicago to California to Washington, DC, you have friends all over the country. They know how much you love Pakistani food …”

On February 12, 2010, Case Button, a Clinton speechwriter, asked Abedin if her mother, a professor at Dar Al Hekma, a women’s university in Saudi Arabia where Clinton held a town hall meeting,would be willing to give him advice on talking points he was preparing for Clinton. Abedin responded, “Talk to my mom for sure. She will have good points for you.” After reviewing Hillary’s draft remarks, Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, (a controversialIslamistactivist), offered some advice: “Do not use the political terms such as ‘democracy/elections/freedom.’ Do not use the term ‘empowerment of women’ instead say ‘enabling women’ Do not even mention driving for women! Don’t sound sympathetic to ‘women’s plight’ or be ‘patronizing’ as other visitors have done and made the students extremely annoyed. They rightly consider these as in-house issues …” No references to these issues appear in Clinton’s speech.

Abedin’s involvement in a major appointment at the State Department is controversial given that Abedin’s mother was an Islamist activist.

On July 24, 2009, Cheryl Mills forwarded to Abedin a CV for someone being considered for the position of Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It had been sent to Mills from State Department recruiter Margaret Carpenter. Rather than forwarding the resume on to Clinton for her approval, Abedin simply responds to Mills: “I’m a hundred percent fine with him.”

Abedin also offered her opinion to Clinton on administration leaders: On January 21, 2011, while on a trip to Mexico, Abedin emailed Hillary that, “Biden is a disaster here.”

On February 20, 2012, Clinton expresses outrage over an apparent wardrobe miscommunication for a meeting in Mexico and sent an emailto Abedin with the subject line “I’m venting.” Clinton admonished:

So, here I sit in the meeting surrounded by ever other person dressed in a white shirt provided by the Mexicans. Patricia is not wearing the exact style that all others are but her own white shirt. But, since no one ever told me about this, and instead assumed I didn’t need to know, I had no idea about any of this until I just walked into the large meeting in front of the entire press corps and I’m wearing a green top. So, what’s my answer when asked why I think I’m different than all my colleagues and why I’m dissing our hosts? I am sick of people deciding what I should know rather than giving me the info so I can make a decision. This really annoys me and I told Monica [Hanley] I just didn’t understand.

These emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation. The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.
To read more about Huma Abedin’s emails, click here.

The IRS Scandal Is Still a Scandal

In a baffling move, President Trump’s Justice Department has decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups:

When we learned of this, I issued this statement:

I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself. President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.

Let’s review the history.

Judicial Watch released 294 pages of FBI “302” documents revealing top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report, which said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The documents revealed that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”

Our litigation forced the IRS first to say that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing and later declare to the court that the emails were on IRS back-up systems. Lerner was one of the top officials responsible for the IRS’ targeting of President Obama’s political opponents. Judicial Watch exposed various IRS record keeping problems:

In June 2014, the IRS claimed to have “lost” responsive emails belonging to Lerner and other IRS officials.

In July 2014Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the IRS to submit to the court a written declaration under oath about what happened to Lerner’s “lost” emails. The sworn declarations proved to be less than forthcoming.

In August 2014, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS finally admitted Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The IRS’ attorneys also disclosed that Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was looking at several of these backup tapes.

In November 2014, the IRS told the court it had failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lerner and other IRS officials.

On February 26, 2015, TIGTA officials testifiedto the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost. The testimony also revealed that IRS officials responsible for responding to the document requests never asked for the backup tapes and that 424 backup tapes containing Lerner’s emails had been destroyed during the pendency of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Congressional investigations.

In June 2015, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to admitin a court filing that it was in possession of 6,400 “newly discovered” Lerner emails. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the IRS to provide answers on the status of the Lerner emails the IRS had previously declared lost. Judicial Watch raised questions about the IRS’ handling of the missing emails issue in a court filing, demanding answers about Lerner’s emails that had been recovered from the backup tapes.

In July 2015, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold John Koskinen, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and Justice Department attorneys in contemptof court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and recovered Lerner emails, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

]]>Judicial Watch Statement on Justice Department’s Decision Not to Charge Lois Lerner in IRS Scandalhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-justice-departments-decision-not-charge-lois-lerner-irs-scandal/
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 20:42:48 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=90603(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the Department of Justice’s decision not to bring charges against Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups: I...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the Department of Justice’s decision not to bring charges against Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups:

I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself. President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.

Judicial Watch released 294 pages of FBI “302” documents revealing top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The new documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”

Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to say that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing and later declare to the court that the emails were on IRS back-up systems. Lerner was one of the top officials responsible for the IRS’ targeting of President Obama’s political opponents. Judicial Watch exposed various IRS record keeping problems:

In June 2014, the IRS claimed to have “lost” responsive emails belonging to Lerner and other IRS officials.

In July 2014 Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the IRS to submit to the court a written declaration under oath about what happened to Lerner’s “lost” emails. The sworn declarations proved to be less than forthcoming.

In August 2014, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS finally admitted Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The IRS’ attorneys also disclosed that Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was looking at several of these backup tapes.

In November 2014, the IRS told the court it had failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lerner and other IRS officials.

On February 26, 2015, TIGTA officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost. The testimony also revealed that IRS officials responsible for responding to the document requests never asked for the backup tapes and that 424 backup tapes containing Lerner’s emails had been destroyed during the pendency of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Congressional investigations.

In June 2015, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to admit in a court filing that it was in possession of 6,400 “newly discovered” Lerner emails. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the IRS to provide answers on the status of the Lerner emails the IRS had previously declared lost. Judicial Watch raised questions about the IRS’ handling of the missing emails issue in a court filing, demanding answers about Lerner’s emails that had been recovered from the backup tapes.

In July 2015, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold John Koskinen, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and recovered Lerner emails, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

]]>Judicial Watch: FBI Investigation Documents of IRS Scandalhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-investigation-documents-irs-scandal/
Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:52:36 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=82306Reveal Top Washington IRS Officials Knew About Targeting of “Tea Party” Groups Two Years Before Disclosing it to Congress and Public FBI interview with IRS senior official reveals: “he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations” (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 294 pages of new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...

]]>Reveal Top Washington IRS Officials Knew About Targeting of “Tea Party” Groups Two Years Before Disclosing it to Congress and Public

FBI interview with IRS senior official reveals: “he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 294 pages of new Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “302” documents revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report that said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The new documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”

The FBI documents also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011. According to one senior tax law specialist, “The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant’s political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way … [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations.” And IRS senior official Nancy Marks, appointed by Miller to conduct an internal investigation stated, “Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity.”

According to the FBI documents, Paz and others were informed in the late spring and summer of 2011 that Cincinnati agents were using “BOLO” (Be On the Look Out) briefing guides that instructed them to be “looking at cases using the Tea Party term.” The IRS failed to reveal such targeting until the ABA conference in May 2013:

She read how the case was screened and it was not because of the organization’s activity. The case seemed to be pulled because of the applicant’s political affiliation and screening is not supposed to occur that way.… She wanted to alert the managers about the way the cases were being pulled…. [Redacted] said he thought the cases were being pulled based upon political affiliations.… [Redacted] then went to tell [Redacted] said he would follow up on the issue and would let HOLLY PAZ know this was possibly occurring. This occurred in the mid to late March or April 2011 timeframe.

***

The cases were labeled as Tea Party cases. The screening sheets said the two cases were pulled because of the names and political affiliations.

The FBI reports that in its interview with an unidentified IRS Technical Advisor who reported directly to Lerner:

[Redacted] attended a meeting in the summer of 2011. She was not invited, but she was talking to LERNER about something else in the office when LERNER mentioned that it would be interesting for her to attend … Only people from Washington, D.C. were in the room, to include HOLLY PAZ … At the meeting, it was disclosed that one of the ways Cincinnati was looking for cases was using the “Tea Party” term. They were calling the body of cases involving political activity “Tea Party” cases. The concern was that the IRS had put a label on the cases that would be problematic.

In his meeting concerning the briefing in mid-June [2011] [Redacted] met with EOT and EOG [Exempt Organizations Group] staffs and PAZ…. They showed PAZ the briefing paper and the use of the Tea Party term. PAZ was the highest ranking person at the meeting.… Somebody said they may not want to use Tea Party as a labeling term. [Redacted] had recognized they may not want to use the term Tea Party when they were doing the briefing paper, but his plan was to raise the issue with PAZ at the briefing. He does not recall PAZ’s reaction.

According to a ten-page section of the documents containing the FBI interviews with IRS Senior Technical Advisor Nancy Marks, in the spring of 2012, Miller asked Marks to “look into how these 501 (c)(4) cases were being handled and find out what the problems were.” After investigations in Washington and Cincinnati, Marks reported the following to Miller in May 2012 according to the FBI:

It was not until much later that MARKS saw information that [Redacted] was only looking for Tea Party cases…. The BOLO [Be on the Lookout] showed that at various points the criteria called for “Tea Party” name, and then later the ideology…. She told him [Miller, on May 3, 2012] that Cincinnati was categorizing cases based on name and ideology, not just activity. When MARKS told MILLER this, he threw his pencil across the room and said, “Oh shit.”

The FBI documents also reveal that the FBI investigated why Holly Paz, the IRS Acting Director of Rulings and Agreements in 2011, sat in on numerous of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) interviews with lower level IRS employees and if her presence improperly influenced the employees’ responses to investigators’ questions. The documents repeatedly state, “Other than the auditors, the only person present during the [Redacted] interview was HOLLY PAZ.”

The documents contain two separate lengthy FBI interviews with Lois Lerner, the first in June 2013 and the second in October 2013. Both interviews came after Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination before the House Oversight Committee in May 2013. By answering questions under oath in her FBI interviews, Lerner seemed to undermine her earlier Fifth Amendment-based refusal to testify to Congress, since witnesses generally cannot invoke the right in one instance and not another. The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusal to testify.

And the FBI 302 documents also contain an interview in which Miller reveals that former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman very likely misled Congress in his March 22, 2012, testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee when he said, “There is absolutely no targeting.” According to the FBI report on the Miller interview, “In February or March, MILLER talked to SHULMAN about the development letters.” The “development letters” were letters sent by the IRS primarily to targeted conservative groups seeking what the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) later termed “inappropriate” information about websites and donors.

“These new smoking-gun documents show Obama FBI and Justice Department had plenty of evidence suggesting illegal targeting, perjury, and obstruction of justice,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Both the FBI and Justice Department collaborated with the Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to prosecute and jail Barack Obama’s political opponents. These FBI documents show the resulting compromised investigation looked the other way when it came to Obama’s IRS criminality.”

The Hillary Clinton email scandal cover-up evidently isn’t keeping the Obama administration’s lawyers busy enough. This week, all of America learned, thanks to Judicial Watch, that the infamous former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS Lois Lerner had yet another email account that may contain documents about the Obama IRS scandal. Our litigation forced the IRS to disclose this astonishing piece of news in a court filing earlier this week. The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the IRS has filed a status report that provides us with some limited information about Lerner’s secretive email account:

In the process of preparing this status report and for the August 24, 2015, release of Lerner communications, the undersigned attorneys learned that, in addition to emails to or from an email account denominated “Lois G. Lerner” or “Lois Home,” some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated “Toby Miles.” The undersigned attorneys contacted the Office of IRS Chief Counsel, and IRS Chief Counsel attorneys informed the undersigned attorneys that these denominations refer to a personal email account used by Lerner.

Evidently, “Toby Miles” refers to the Lerner family dog. (“Miles” is the last name of Ms. Lerner’s husband.)

The development comes in Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama. Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

It is remarkable that the Obama IRS and Justice Department waited two years to tell a federal court that Lois Lerner had a separate email account that contains documents at issue in the IRS scandal. Especially since both agencies knew about this account since April of last year.

It could be a crime if Lerner kept confidential taxpayer data on her non-governmental email account.

This new disclosure follows the Obama administration’s Nixonian practice of “modified limited hangouts” of information about its IRS scandal and Lerner’s “lost and found” emails. Every step of the way, the Obama IRS has obstructed this court’s orders to get Lerner’s emails recovered and searched.

Just to review, it was back in May 2013 that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released an audit report confirming that the IRS used “inappropriate” criteria to identify Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that had expressed opposition to the Obama administration’s policy agenda during his re-election bid. In May 2014, Lerner was held in contempt of Congress after refusing to testify at a congressional hearing about the agency’s actions. TIGTA has proven to be a real goldmine for the truth that the IRS has worked to conceal. Earlier this month, TIGTA released another report confirming that the IRS failed to conduct a timely search of its back-up tapes, resulting in 24,000 Lerner emails being destroyed. The TIGTA report also confirms that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen delayed informing Congress (and the courts) for months about Lerner’s email issue.

Last month, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lerner, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

Earlier this year, TIGTA testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost.

As TheWashington Times, whose Stephen Dinan first broke this JW story, points out, the IRS and Justice Department is still playing games even as it pretends to be forthcoming to the Court:

In his court filing, [Justice Department attorney] Mr. Klimas argued that the IRS had previously hinted there may be other personal email accounts, pointing back to a footnote in a letter attached to a June 27, 2014, brief that mentioned “documents located on her personal home computer and email on her personal email account.”

He altered that wording in his filing Monday, saying the database of Lerner emails turned over to Congress included messages from her “‘personal home computer and email on her personal email’ account(s).”

Since the court has already threatened both IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys with a contempt charge over the Lerner email issue, I suspect that Judge Sullivan won’t be pleased by this latest revelation and gamesmanship.

The brazen lawlessness by this administration and its allies on illegal immigration knows no bounds. I was shocked to read that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired an illegal alien to help with its campaigns. The media played it as a “Dreamer” moment.

Your Judicial Watch is having none of that lawless approach to the rule of law on immigration.

We have just filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission requesting that it investigate the DNC for having “knowingly hired” an illegal alien, Cindy Nava, to help craft the committee’s 2016 political message and communications. Judicial Watch filed its complaint on August 25, 2015.

A June 8, 2015, story in The Washington Post reported that the DNC hired Nava with full knowledge of what DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) termed Nava’s “undocumented status.” The news report details that “Despite not yet attaining legal status, Nava is working for the Democratic National Committee as one of a crop of fellows from around the country helping the party organize ahead of a presidential election that President Obama predicted would feature immigration as a major issue.” The Spanish language newspaper El Nuevo Herald reports that Nava would help coordinate DNC outreach to “women, youth, and Hispanics.”

Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from participating “directly or indirectly in the decision-making process” of federal, state, or local election-related activities.

The Judicial Watch FEC complaint charges:

The Democratic National Committee knowingly hired a Foreign National to assist, directly or indirectly, in setting the Committee’s Public Policy Agenda for its Candidates, the National Committee, and its Associated Organizations.

The United States has prohibited non-citizen participation in election related activities for over fifty years. The United States Supreme Court has held that such prohibitions are legally permissible under the U.S. Constitution… In 2002, Congress expanded the prohibitions on foreign nationals… to include “anything of value” that “directly or indirectly” contributes to a political campaign… The Commission has stated “foreign nationals [cannot] direct, control, or otherwise participate directly or indirectly in the decision-making process of [a] PAC.

On its face, the DNC’s decision to hire Ms. Nava is in direct violation of this provision. The FEC should investigate this matter further to determine the full extent of Ms. Nava’s responsibilities, her relationship to the policy making team, and her effect on the 2016 DNC election strategy.

The Democratic National Committee is Willfully and Knowingly violating Federal Law and Contradicting Federal Policy by Permitting a Foreign National to Contribute to the Conventions Campaigns, Election Strategy, and Fundraising Efforts

The United States Congress created a federal offense to knowingly hire an illegal alien. It is against Federal law “to hire, or to recruit…, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien… There are two elements to this crime: (1) knowledge of the alien’s status, and (2) an employment offer…

Thus, the DNC is violating federal law by hiring Cindy Nava. Her fellowship constitutes expenditures under the FEC regulation, and therefore these illegal expenditures are within the scope of FEC regulations… They have actively employed Ms. Nava knowing that she lacked proper authorization to work in the United States.

Our request for a “full, formal investigation” concludes, “These actions are particularly egregious because the DNC flagrantly promotes their illegal activities, lawlessness, and disrespect for the rule of law.”

Is it any wonder this nation has a border and illegal alien crisis?

Not only do we have a major political party knowingly employing an illegal alien, but also openly boasting about it to the nation’s press. The DNC should be held accountable by the FEC for hiring an illegal alien in violation of both federal immigration and election laws. Frankly, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should also take appropriate law enforcement action.Federal Courts Are Not Above the Law

For decades, the courts have recognized the importance of safeguarding voters against gerrymandering abuses by passing and upholding the Three-Judge Court Act, a federal law that dates back to 1910.

The Act requires three-judge District Court panels to hear all constitutional challenges to legislative redistricting. This law also requires three federal judges to be empaneled to hear key federal lawsuits concerning voting rights, campaign finance, and other key constitutional issues unless a case is “obviously frivolous.”

In 2013, one judge on the District Court ignored the requirement to convene a three-judge panel because he determined the case was not “plausible.” The Fourth Circuit upheld this decision in its 2014 ruling against Mr. Shapiro and fellow plaintiffs John Benisek, and Maria Pycha.

Judicial Watch has a particular interest in this issue, as it represents several Maryland voters in a separate lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district maps. Judicial Watch’s amicus brief argues that:

[T]he Fourth Circuit’s ruling violates the Three-Judge Court Act and will allow states to delay judicial review of gerrymandered redistricting plans that disenfranchise voters and violate the Constitution. Moreover, on June 24, 2015, Judicial Watch filed a new constitutional challenge to Maryland’s redistricting plan on behalf of several plaintiffs. SeeParrott v. McManus, No. 1:15-cv-01849 (D. Md.). The plaintiffs have asked for a three-judge panel in Parrott, but no such panel has been convened yet, and a motion to dismiss is currently pending before the single judge initially assigned to the case.

Judicial Watch points out that the Fourth Circuit’s circumvention of federal law results in “an allocation of authority” to one federal court judge that “cannot be squared with Congress’ judgment—recognized by this Court and others—that apportionment challenges and other types of three-judge cases are too important to be decided in the first instance by a single judge. Nor is the difference between one and three judges merely a formality.”

Congress intended redistricting and other constitutional challenges under laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be heard under the “exceptional procedure” of a special three-judge panel. In 1976, Congress specifically tried to ensure that redistricting cases were handled by such panels in order “to assure more weight and greater deliberation by not leaving the fate of such litigation to a single judge. By instead using motions to dismiss to limit access to three-judge courts, the Fourth Circuit has turned the Three-Judge Court Act’s purpose and framework on its head.”

The Three-Judge Court Act allows appeals from the three judge District Court panels to go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. This statute assures a more speedy resolution to this important class of cases, which the Fourth Circuit’s rule undermines, especially in redistricting cases (which affect both federal and state elections):

And when the clock is always counting down towards the next election, such a delay can control whether the alleged constitutional violation can be remedied or if it is something that a state’s voters simply must swallow.

The 2013 lawsuit by Shapiro, Benisek, and Pycha came in response to a Congressional Districting Plan signed into law by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley in October 2011. Critics at the time charged that the new congressional map was specifically designed to enhance the power of select incumbents while minimizing the voting power of minorities, rural voters and Republicans. The Washington Post editorialized: “The map, drafted under Mr. O’Malley’s watchful eye, mocks the idea that voting districts should be compact or easily navigable. The eight districts respect neither jurisdictional boundaries nor communities of interest. To protect incumbents and for partisan advantage, the map has been sliced, diced, shuffled and shattered, making districts resemble studies in cubism.”

The Supreme Court should affirm the Three-Judge Court Act and remind the Fourth Circuit that the federal courts are not above the law. The Fourth Circuit subverts the law by allowing one judge inordinate power to effectively decide whether voters can challenge how a state draws congressional and state legislative districts.

The Supreme Court should now check this judicial legislating that makes it harder for voters to vindicate their constitutional rights.

Your JW first entered the Maryland redistricting battle on August 10, 2012, when it represented MDPetitions.com and Delegate Neil Parrott in its successful lawsuit to block a move by the state’s Democrat party to have an Election Day voter referendum on the state’s controversial gerrymandering plan removed from the ballot. Three weeks later, we again represented Delegate Parrott in filing a complaint against Maryland Secretary of State John McDonough and the State Board of Elections challenging the misleading language of the wording of the ballot question. The current constitutional challenge to the Maryland gerrymander is pending in federal court (Parrott, et al, v. Lamone, et al (No. 1:15-cv-01849).

The Supreme Court should rule by next summer.

Judicial Watch Announces its September 14 Leadership Summit on Washington Corruption and the Transparency Crisis

With our government off the rails and out of control, Judicial Watch’s inaugural Leadership Summit could not come at a better time. The event will take place on Monday, September 14 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill, and will focus attention on the actions of unaccountable, corrupt figures in both political parties.

Please join us for a full day of panel discussions and a special keynote speaker, plus many top-flight speakers including Fox News analyst Andy McCarthy, conservative Congressman Rep. Louie Gohmert, former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova, and Steve Bannon, Executive Chairman, of Breitbart News. You will not want to miss it!

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/jw-uncovers-new-lerner-email-account/feed/0Judicial Watch Statement in Response to Obama IRS Disclosure of New Lois Lerner Email Accounthttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-in-response-to-obama-irs-disclosure-of-new-lois-lerner-email-account/
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:01:23 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=76965(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding the recent court filing by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealing the existence of an alias email address used by Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS: It is remarkable that the Obama IRS and Justice...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding the recent court filing by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealing the existence of an alias email address used by Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS:

It is remarkable that the Obama IRS and Justice Department waited two years to tell a federal court that Lois Lerner had a separate email account that contains documents at issue in the IRS scandal. Especially since both agencies knew about this account since April of last year.

It could be a crime if Lois Lerner kept confidential taxpayer data on her non-governmental email account.

This new disclosure follows the Obama administration’s Nixonian practice of “modified limited hangouts” of information about its IRS scandal and Lois Lerner “lost and found” emails. Every step of the way, the Obama IRS has obstructed this court’s orders to get Lois Lerner’s emails recovered and searched.

The Court has already threatened contempt against both IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys over the Lerner email issue. And I suspect that Judge Sullivan won’t be pleased by this latest revelation.

Yesterday evening, the Justice Department, on behalf of the IRS, filed a status report that gave limited information about a new Lois Lerner email account:

In the process of preparing this status report and for the August 24, 2015, release of Lerner communications, the undersigned attorneys learned that, in addition to emails to or from an email account denominated “Lois G. Lerner” or “Lois Home,” some emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s request may have been sent to or received from a personal email account denominated “Toby Miles.” The undersigned attorneys contacted the Office of IRS Chief Counsel, and IRS Chief Counsel attorneys informed the undersigned attorneys that these denominations refer to a personal email account used by Lerner.

The development comes in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

Last month, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

Earlier this year, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost.

This was quite the week for those of us demanding that the Obama IRS be held accountable to the rule of law for its abuse of innocent taxpayers. We received more documents that expose more Obama administration misconduct and lies in the IRS scandal. And a federal court judge threatened to hold the IRS Commissioner personally in contempt over the agency’s violation of his court orders.

U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

During the a status hearing Wednesday, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and that the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible” ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the court hold the commissioner of the IRS in contempt?” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney the court has the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said:

If there is further noncompliance, I will haul into court the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to show cause why that person should not be personally held in contempt of court. I can’t make that any clearer.”

To read the transcript of the hearing, which I urge you to do, click here.

After the hearing, Judge Sullivan issued the following “minute order”:

At the July 29, 2015 status hearing, the Government agreed that the Court’s July 1, 2015 oral order from the bench was clear and enforceable. Nonetheless, the Government reasoned it inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration until a written order was issued. As expressed at the hearing, the Government’s reasoning is nonsensical. Officers of the Court who fail to comply with Court orders will be held in contempt. Also, in the event of non-compliance with future Court orders, the Commissioner of the IRS and others shall be directed to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of Court. The Court’s July 1, 2015 ruling from the bench stands: (1) the Government shall produce relevant documents every Monday; (2) the Government’s document production shall be accompanied by a status report that indicates (a) whether TIGTA has turned over any new documents to the IRS, (b) if so, the number of documents, and (c) a timeframe for the IRSs production of those documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2015.

Back during the July 1, 2015, status conference, Sullivan had ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch weekly status reports of the Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a hearing, after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders.

The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to claim that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

The day before the extraordinary court hearing, Judicial Watch released the first batch (906 pages) of Lerner’s believed-to-be newly recovered emails. The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the scandalous handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations and individuals. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

We believe these emails were recovered by the agency’s own internal watchdog – the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

Lerner sent a November 3, 2011, email documenting her concerns about the failure to process applications in a timely manner:

I’m getting a little nervous about the amount we have on our plate and how we are handling. I know everyone is working hard and juggling, but I am wondering whether the juggling decisions are being made holistically enough. We have only so many resources and things will probably get worse going forward. I worry that decisions about how to use the resources are being made without all the information…Something that may not seem important in Cincinnati, may be crucial in DC. Similarly, DC may be prioritizing its work based on what is sitting in DC when something sitting in Cincinnati should be the focus of DC work.

IRS Program Manager Cindy Thomas of the Cincinnati Exempt Organization office replied to Lerner a few hours later with an email detailing the pressure caused by the IRS’ Washington headquarters failure to move on the “advocacy cases.” Thomas warned of litigation and admitted that she authorized a letter for more information that was sent to one of the complaining groups to keep it from contacting Congress:

The backlog of work involves advocacy organizations. As of about a month ago, there were 161 of these cases sitting idle and we probably have more by now. The control dates for these cases go back to the end of 2009 and all through 2010. We’ve been waiting for EO in D.C. to get us a guidance/reference document with lessons learned from the c4 and c3 cases they worked and coordinated with Judy Kindell and Counsel. We’re getting calls from POAs wanting to know who has put the halt on working these cases and threatening to contact their Congressional offices. Just today, I instructed one of my managers to get an additional information letter out to one of these organizations — if nothing else to buy time so he didn’t contact his Congressional Office. Soon, we’re going to start getting TAO’s [Taxpayer Assistance Orders] from TAS [Taxpayer Advocate Service] or declaratory judgment cases filed —- then, I guess everyone will decide its time to start moving the cases when we have mounds of additional paperwork to process along with the cases (adding even more work for us to do).

Another IRS lawyer responded to Lerner’s email with an admission that IRS’ Washington headquarters’ legal staff had hundreds of cases backlogged. Michael Seto, who headed the Exempt Organization Technical Unit, acknowledged to Lerner on November 9, 2011, that there were 446 application cases open in the beginning of fiscal year 2012, with many open for more than two years.

The emails also show that Lerner and other top officials of the IRS were aware of complaints about treatment by Tea Party groups. In response to a February 2012 complaint and request for briefing from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about, according to the IRS, a Tea Party organization that applied for exemption about 18 months previously and only “just recently” heard anything about the status of its application: “When it did finally hear from us, [the IRS] apparently asked some fairly detailed questions and gave the organization a short deadline to respond.”

Miller, who was then-IRS Deputy Commissioner for Service and Enforcement, emailed: “let me know if it’s a taxpayer I should know about.” He also complained about the number of emails about the issue, writing: “Will the emails never stop?” Miller became Acting Commissioner for the IRS later in the year and was eventually forced out after the Obama IRS scandal became public in May 2013.

Lerner handled the subsequent briefing of Rep. Jordan, and a statement by the IRS in response did not mention backlogs, Tea Party targeting, or Lerner’s own concerns about the nature of the questions the IRS was sending to Tea Party applicants.

Another email shows that Miller delayed “guidelines” for handling the backlogged applications the very week after Lerner’s briefing of Rep. Jordan. This same email chain, dated February 28, shows that, in a response to a complaint from Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office about Tea Party application delays, Lerner admits: “this is a very sensitive area.”

Just to review, it was back in May 2013, that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released an audit report confirming that the IRS used “inappropriate” criteria to identify Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that had expressed opposition to the Obama administration’s policy agenda during his re-election bid. In May 2014, Lerner was held in contempt of Congress after refusing to testify at a congressional hearing about the agency’s actions. TIGTA has proven to be a real goldmine for the truth that the IRS has worked to conceal. Earlier this month, TIGTA released another report confirming that the IRS failed to timely search its back-up tapes resulting in 24,000 Lerner emails being destroyed. The TIGTA report also confirms that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen delayed informing Congress (and the courts) for months about Lerner’s email issue.

Keep in mind that all of these developments come in response to your JW’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama.

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. These recovered Lerner emails had to be dragged out of the Obama IRS, which is still resisting a federal court order requiring disclosure of Lerner’s “lost” emails. This material shows that the IRS’ cover-up began years ago. We now have smoking-gun proof that top officials in the Obama IRS unlawfully harassed taxpayers just to keep them from complaining to Congress about IRS’ targeting and abuse. No wonder the Obama IRS has had such little interest in preserving or finding Lerner’s emails.

I am grateful that Judge Sullivan made it clear that he would personally hold accountable IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in our FOIA lawsuit. The missing and then-the-not-missing Lerner email saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.

Judicial Watch’s legal team, led by Director of Litigation Paul Orfanedes, deserves special kudos here. Their legal brilliance and persistence in court, against an army of taxpayer-funded lawyers at the Justice Department and IRS, paid off once again this week.

The liberal uproar over the Confederate flag is ironic in light of an effort, supported by federal tax dollars courtesy of the Obama administration, to allow leftists in Hawaii to conduct a racially discriminatory campaign that could lead to Hawaii actually trying to leave the United States of America.

The liberal media won’t tell you about this pernicious effort, but Judicial Watch is on the case and I can report to you success in our court efforts.

We have just obtained the race-based enrollment list of native Hawaiians created in accordance with the “Kana’iolowalu,” the controversial racial registration campaign run by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC). Your JW obtained the list under a June 3, 2015, court order issued in an open records lawsuit that our legal team filed against the Roll Commission, seeking the release of documents related to the campaign. If you are a Hawaiian, I encourage you are to search the list to see if your name was added.

On July 20, 2012, using taxpayer funds from the State’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission launched the Kana’iolowalu campaign, opening a registration process for native Hawaiians who desired to vote for a new race-based sovereign government.

Upon the registration’s closing in January 2014, only about 40,000 native Hawaiians had registered.

Trying to inflate the list numbers, the Roll Commission then reopened registration in March and again in August of 2014. During this period, the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs transferred government lists of “Native Hawaiians” who had previously registered their “ancestry” with the state agency to the Kana’iolowalu campaign. At least 87,000 names were transferred to the NHRC’s enrollment list in this way. This resulted in registrants placed on the enrollment list without their knowledge or consent. Individuals who object to being added to the race-based voter roll without their permission are compelled to file a form to have their names removed.

This enrollment list was created under Act 195, the 2011 Hawaii law that authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to create a list of “Native Hawaiians” who would be eligible to vote on issues concerning the sovereignty of the “Native Hawaiian people.” Act 195 defines a “Native Hawaiian” as any person whom the government determines to be a direct descendant of the State’s aboriginal peoples. A person may register for the Kana’iolowalu if, besides meeting the law’s racial requirements, that individual has “maintained a significant cultural, social, or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community” and “wishes to participate” in organizing an anticipated “Native Hawaiian governing entity.”

The Roll Commission defines Kana’iolowalu as “the din that is being created by the mass of people who are coming together and moving forward to strive and achieve and recognize the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people …”

Again, now that the list is public, any individual concerned that their name is improperly on the list can check the list here, http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/nhrc-list-of-registered-names-combined/ If your name appears on the list (or your minor child’s name) and you wish to have it removed, you should contact: Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, P.O. Box 75331, Honolulu, Hawaii 96836. The NHRC phone number is (808) 973-0099.

Unfortunately, too many Hawaiians will learn that they have been registered, without their permission, on a race-based enrollment list to help radicals in Hawaii tear the state apart and break away from the United States of America. Trying to divide American citizens by race is bad enough, but signing citizens up for this project without even telling them is a particularly nasty abuse of government power. A group of leftist radicals is trying to bring apartheid to Hawaii. Hawaiians should check this “enrollment” list to help make sure they have no part in this plot.

The Obama administration is giving this movement aid and support. It took executive action toward “the reestablishment of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.” So as liberal pressure has led to the removal of the Confederate flag in South Carolina, liberals push a new race-based secession movement in Hawaii with your tax dollars. There will be more JW action on issue, so stay tuned.

No other media outlet, no congressional committee, and no other non-governmental organization can match Judicial Watch’s successes in ferreting out what the government doesn’t want you know. On the issue of terrorism and the border, JW’s journalism has had an international impact. Our goal is to educate the public about the Islamist terrorist threat from our southern border and the government corruption and incompetence that places all Americans at risk. We’ve exposed ISIS terrorist threats on the border, terrorist arrests on the border, and ISIS camps in Mexico. Just this week, we highlighted how the terrorists are being brought here by the drug cartels:

Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso and they’re using remote farm roads—rather than interstates—to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers, according to Judicial Watch sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border.

JW’s law enforcement sources say that the cartels are exploiting Border Patrol and Texas Department of Public Safety policies to tie the hands of law enforcement by limiting traffic stops and interdiction operations.

Our nation’s unsecured border with Mexico is an existential threat to our nation. The American people see the crimes committed by illegal alien criminals every day. The terrorist threat resulting from the crazed and lawless amnesty and non-security policies are potentially much more dangerous to the public safety.

So Judicial Watch is especially pleased to announce a new documentary, produced in partnership with TheBlaze TV, that chronicles how an al-Qaeda cell in New Mexico plotted a major terrorist attack against Chicago that would have been the most significant domestic terrorist attack since 9/11. Judicial Watch was the first to report this dramatic story, which included a plan to bomb Oprah Winfrey’s studios and the iconic Willis Tower (the renamed Sears Tower) in Chicago.

“The Sun City Cell” is the story of the narco-terror plot that government officials deny and that media outlets have failed to report. The documentary investigates corruption and the dark world of confidential informants in an attempt to expose an escalating threat to the nation. It presents evidence showing how a major U.S. city became an operational base and staging area for a terror cell, and how corruption among high-ranking government officials and law enforcement officers left the United States vulnerable to a major terror strike.

The documentary is the product of a four-year investigation by Judicial Watch. Christopher Farrell, our long-time director of investigations and research (and a former military intelligence officer) has led our investigative and reporting efforts on the narco-terror border threat. The documentary shows how Judicial Watch’s sources inside law enforcement and the government risked their lives to tell the truth to the American people.

Expanding on our groundbreaking investigative reports, this new documentary provides never-before-seen evidence and exclusive interviews that show how Mexican drug cartels are transporting terrorists, drugs and weapons into the United States completely undetected.

As a Judicial Watch Weekly Update subscriber, you can watch “The Sun City Cell” free for a limited time. Until Tuesday, August 4, you can click here, https://vimeo.com/134411651. Be sure to enter the password: Sun City 2015

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan today threatened to hold the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and newly recovered emails of Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.

During the status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally in contempt.”

After the hearing, Judge Sullivan issued the following “minute order”:

At the July 29, 2015 status hearing, the Government agreed that the Court’s July 1, 2015 oral order from the bench was clear and enforceable. Nonetheless, the Government reasoned it inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration until a written order was issued. As expressed at the hearing, the Government’s reasoning is nonsensical. Officers of the Court who fail to comply with Court orders will be held in contempt. Also, in the event of non-compliance with future Court orders, the Commissioner of the IRS and others shall be directed to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of Court. The Court’s July 1, 2015 ruling from the bench stands: (1) the Government shall produce relevant documents every Monday; (2) the Government’s document production shall be accompanied by a status report that indicates (a) whether TIGTA has turned over any new documents to the IRS, (b) if so, the number of documents, and (c) a timeframe for the IRSs production of those documents. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 29, 2015.

At a July 1, 2015, status conference, Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing today after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.

The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

Yesterday, Judicial Watch released the first batch believed to be newly recovered emails of Lerner. The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commissioner-doj-lawyers-in-contempt-of-court-over-lerner/feed/0Judicial Watch: IRS Produces Recovered Lerner Emailshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-irs-produces-recovered-lerner-emails/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-irs-produces-recovered-lerner-emails/#respondTue, 28 Jul 2015 21:15:41 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=76516(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch released 906 pages of newly recovered Lois Lerner emails from the IRS that are believed to recently have been recovered by the IRS’ internal watchdog – the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The IRS released the emails under a court order by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. ...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch released 906 pages of newly recovered Lois Lerner emails from the IRS that are believed to recently have been recovered by the IRS’ internal watchdog – the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The IRS released the emails under a court order by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. The new documents show that Lois Lerner and other top officials in the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

At July 1, 2015, status conference, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lois Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lois Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lois Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Judge Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing for tomorrow (July 29) shortly after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.

The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

The documents show that Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner, sent a November 3, 2011, email documenting her concerns about the failure to process applications in a timely manner:

I’m getting a little nervous about the amount we have on our plate and how we are handling. I know everyone is working hard and juggling, but I am wondering whether the juggling decisions are being made holistically enough. We have only so many resources and things will probably get worse going forward. I worry that decisions about how to use the resources are being made without all the information…Something that may not seem important in Cincinnati, may be crucial in DC. Similarly, DC may be prioritizing its work based on what is sitting in DC when something sitting in Cincinnati should be the focus of DC work.

IRS Program Manager Cindy Thomas of the Cincinnati Exempt Organization office replied to Lerner a few hours later with an email detailing the pressure caused by the IRS’ Washington headquarters failure to move on the “advocacy cases.” Thomas warned of litigation and admitted that she authorized a letter for more information that was sent to one of the complaining groups to keep it from contacting Congress:

The backlog of work involves advocacy organizations. As of about a month ago, there were 161 of these cases sitting idle and we probably have more by now. The control dates for these cases go back to the end of 2009 and all through 2010. We’ve been waiting for EO in D.C. to get us a guidance/reference document with lessons learned from the c4 and c3 cases they worked and coordinated with Judy Kindell and Counsel. We’re getting calls from POAs wanting to know who has put the halt on working these cases and threatening to contact their Congressional offices. Just today, I instructed one of my managers to get an additional information letter out to one of these organizations — if nothing else to buy time so he didn’t contact his Congressional Office. Soon, we’re going to start getting TAO’s [Taxpayer Assistance Orders] from TAS [Taxpayer Advocate Service] or declaratory judgment cases filed —- then, I guess everyone will decide its time to start moving the cases when we have mounds of additional paperwork to process along with the cases (adding even more work for us to do).

Another IRS lawyer responded to Lerner’s email with an admission that IRS’ D.C. headquarters legal staff had hundreds of cases backlogged. Michael Seto, who headed the Exempt Organization Technical Unit, acknowledged to Lerner on November 9, 2011, that there were 446 application cases open beginning of fiscal year 2012, with many open for more than two years.

The emails also show that Lerner and other top officials of the IRS were aware of complaints about treatment by Tea Party groups. In response to a February 2012 complaint and request for briefing from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about, according to the IRS, a Tea Party an organization that applied for exemption about 18 months previously and only “just recently” heard anything about the status of its application: “When it did finally hear from us, we [the IRS] apparently asked some fairly detailed questions and gave the organization a short deadline to respond.”

Miller, who was then-IRS Deputy Commissioner for Service and Enforcement, emailed: “let me know if it’s a taxpayer I should know about.” He also complained about the number of emails about the issue, writing: “Will the emails never stop?” Miller became Acting Commissioner for the IRS later in the year and was eventually forced out after the Obama IRS scandal became public in May 2013.

Lerner handled the subsequent briefing of Rep. Jordan, and a statement by the IRS in response did not mention backlogs, Tea Party targeting, or Lerner’s own concerns about the nature of the questions the IRS was sending to Tea Party applicants.

Another email shows that Miller delayed “guidelines” for handling the backlogged applications the very week after Lerner’s briefing of Rep. Jordan. This same email chain, dated February 28, shows that Lerner, in a response to a complaint from Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office about Tea Party application delays, Lerner admits: “this is a very sensitive area.”

“These recovered Lois Lerner emails had to be dragged out of the Obama IRS, which is still resisting a federal court order requiring disclosure of Lerner’s ‘lost’ emails,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This material shows that the IRS’ cover-up began years ago. We now have smoking-gun proof that top officials in the Obama IRS unlawfully harassed taxpayers just to keep them from complaining to Congress about IRS’ targeting and abuse. No wonder the Obama IRS has had such little interest in preserving or finding Lois Lerner’s emails.”

]]>http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-irs-produces-recovered-lerner-emails/feed/0Judicial Watch: New Documents Show IRS Used Donor Lists to Target Auditshttp://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-irs-documents-used-donor-lists-to-target-audits/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-irs-documents-used-donor-lists-to-target-audits/#respondWed, 22 Jul 2015 20:36:23 +0000http://www.judicialwatch.org/?post_type=press_release&p=76424(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists to tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from...

]]>(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists to tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. The IRS produced the records in a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about selection of individuals for audits, based upon application information and donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:15-cv-00220)).

A letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “ I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

In 2010, after receiving Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.

A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.

The documents show that Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, was specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of applying the gift tax. Seemingly in response to the Crossroads focus, on April 20, IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emails a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information is apparently shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl while Gardner seeks “information about any of the donors.”

Emails to and from Lorraine Gardner also suggested bias against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. An IRS official (whose name is redacted) emails Gardner on May 13, 2011, a blog post responding to the IRS targeting of political and other activities of 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) organization and may find itself under high scrutiny. One can only hope.

The subject line of the email highlights this anti-Chamber of Commerce comment: “we are making headlines notice the end regarding 501(c)(6) applicability enjoy.” This critical comment is forwarded to other IRS officials and shows up attached to another Gardner IRS email chain with the subject line “re: 501(c)(4)” that discusses a pending decision about a tax-exempt entity.

In early May, once the media began reporting on the IRS audits of donors, IRS officials reacted quickly. One official acknowledges the issue “is a biggy” when a reporter from The New York Times contacts the IRS on May 9.

On May 13, 2011, former IRS Director of Legislative Affairs Floyd Williams discusses compliance with “interest” from Capitol Hill: “Not surprisingly, interest on the hill is picking up on this issue … with Majority Leader Reid’s office, has suggested the possibility of a briefing for the Senate Finance Committee staff on general issues related to section 501(c)(4) organizations I think we should do it as interest is likely to grow as we get closer to elections.”

Later that day, then-Director of the Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner weighs in with an email that confirms that she supported the gift tax audits. Lerner acknowledges that “the courts have said specifically that contributions to 527 political organizations are not subject to the gift tax–nothing that I’m aware of that about contributions to organizations that are not political organizations.” Section 501(c)(4) organizations are not “political organizations.” [Emphasis in original]

Lerner’s involvement and support for the new gift tax contradicts the IRS statement to the media at the time that audits were not part of a “broader effort looking at donations 501(c)(4)’s.” In July 2011, the IRS retreated and soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller directed that “examination resources should not be expended on this issue” and that all audits of taxpayers “relating to the application of gift taxes” to 501(c)(4) organizations “should be closed.”

“These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration. President Obama may want to continue to lie about his IRS scandal. These documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.”

Judicial Watch had filed a separate lawsuit for records about targeting of individuals for audit in November 2013. In that litigation, the IRS had refused to search any email systems, including Lerner’s records. A federal court ruled the IRS’ search was sufficient and dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.”

The House Ways and Means Committee announced at a May 7, 2014, hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to the conservative 501(c)(4) organization Freedom’s Watch were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bradley Blakeman, Freedom’s Watch’s former president, also alleges he was “personally targeted” by the IRS.

Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

Don’t fall off your chair, but this week the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ignored a court-imposed deadline to produce newly found Lois Lerner’s emails. Lerner is the former director of the agency’s Exempt Organizations Unit who remains at the epicenter of a growing scandal over the tax agency’s targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups and citizens.

In a victory for Judicial Watch, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the IRS last week to begin producing, every Monday, nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lois Lerner emails. Judge Sullivan ruled from the bench during a status conference on July 1, 2015. Despite the court order, the IRS failed to produce any Lois Lerner emails this past Monday. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status of the Lois Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Judge Sullivan.

After some back and forth, we’ve agreed to receive the documents next week but I’m not sure how the IRS is going to explain its ignoring his orders to Judge Sullivan.

A report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released just this week on the Lois Lerner email scandal confirms that the IRS failure to timely search its back-up tapes resulted in 24,000 Lois Lerner emails being destroyed. The TIGTA report also confirms that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen delayed informing Congress (and the courts) for months about Lois Lerner’s email issue. (Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to produce the TIGTA report to chambers the next day for in camera review at the July 1 hearing.)

The TIGTA report details that the Treasury Department also knew about the Lerner email problems for months but made no public disclosure. Other records remain missing, including potentially over 300 IRS hard drives. The office of IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, an Obama political appointee, oversaw the mishandling of the Lois Lerner email issue.

These developments come in response to your JW’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama’s. It was our litigation that forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS back-up systems.

Back in November 2014, the IRS told the court it had failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lerner and other IRS officials.

On February 26, 2015, TIGTA officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 back-up tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner. This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely declared to Congress, Judge Sullivan and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost.

Sure enough, TITGA recovered the new Lerner emails from IRS back-up tapes. TIGTA was able to locate the Lois Lerner back-up tapes within one day of requesting them from the IRS.

The Obama IRS’ contempt for the courts and for Congress resulted in a massive destruction of evidence. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s and IRS Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins’ resignations are long overdue.

The scandal about the Lerner emails and court obstruction is just for starters. This week, JW made headlines with new documents we forced out of the Department of Justice and IRS. The documents include an extraordinary “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity. Incredibly, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort.

The October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity:

The section’s attorneys expressed concern that certain section 501(c) organizations are actually political committees “posing” as if they are not subject to FEC law, and therefore may be subject to criminal liability. The attorneys mentioned several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law. In response, Lois and Judy eloquently explained the following points:

Under section 7805(b), we may only revoke or modify an organization’s exemption retroactively if it omitted or misstated a material fact or operated in a manner materially different from that originally represented.

If we do not have these misrepresentations, the organization may rely on our determination it is exempt. However, the likelihood of revocation is diminished by the fact that section 501(c)(4)-(c)(6) organizations are not required to apply for recognition of exemption.

We discussed the hypothetical situation of a section 501(c)(4) organization that declares itself exempt as a social welfare organization, but at the end of the taxable year has in fact functioned as a political organization. Judy explained that such an organization, in order to be in compliance, would simply file Form 1120-POL and paying tax at the highest corporate rate.

Lois stated that although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from CI who can better answer that question. She explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI.

The attorneys asked whether a change in the law is necessary, and whether a three-way partnership among DOJ, the FEC, and the IRS is possible to prevent prohibited activity by these organizations. Lois listed a number of obstacles to the attorneys’ theories:

[REDACTED]

She pointed to Revenue Ruling 2004-6, which was drafted in light of the electioneering communication rules before they were litigated.

Just prior this meeting, the IRS began the process of providing the FBI confidential taxpayer information on nonprofit groups. This resulted in a massive breach. An IRS document confirms the IRS supplied the FBI with 21 disks containing 1.25 million pages of taxpayer records:

There are 113,000 C4 returns from January 1, 2007 to now. Assuming they want all pages including redacted ones, that’s 1.25 million pages … If we get started on it right away, before the 10th when the monthly extracts start, we can probably get it done in a week or so….

The Justice Department documents also include a July 16, 2013, email from an undisclosed Justice official to a lawyer for IRS employees asking that the Obama administration get information from congressional witnesses before Congress does:

One last issue. If any of your clients have documents they are providing to Congress that you can (or would like to) provide to us before their testimony, we would be pleased to receive them. We are 6103 authorized and I can connect you with TIGTA to confirm; we would like the unredacted documents.

Why would the Justice Department need to get the documents first? Certainly not to help Congress or inform the American people.

All this shows that the Obama IRS was one of several federal law enforcement agencies misused by President Obama’s administration. The Justice Department and the FBI were used as law enforcement is often used in dictatorships – to try to silence and jail opposition to the dictator.

Americans would never have known anything about this abuse but for Judicial Watch. On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.

Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange included a May 8, 2013, email by Lerner:

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

The House Oversight Committee followed up on these Judicial Watch disclosures with hearings and interviews of Pilger and his boss, Justice Department Public Integrity Chief Jack Smith. Besides confirming the Justice Department’s 2013 communications with Lerner, Pilger admitted to the committee that Justice officials met with Lerner in October 2010. We then uncovered new details about these meetings in December 2014 showing that it was the Obama Justice Department that initiated outreach to the IRS about prosecuting tax-exempt entities.

Now, these new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama Justice Department and FBI scandal. The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct reasons to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information.

Again, also following Judicial Watch’s lead, the House also found out about the IRS transmittal of the confidential taxpayer information to the FBI. Because of this public disclosure, the FBI was forced to return the 1.25 million pages to the IRS. Why? Because it was likely a crime to have received them. Simply put, the FBI or a Justice Department prosecutor can’t ask for and receive IRS records on thousands of Americans just because the government might want prosecute one taxpayer or one tax exempt organization. The rules and the law are quite specific, as the IRS explains here. The Privacy Act, another law that makes it a crime to misuse certain government files, may also apply.

The IRS scandal surfaced years ago — and for all the administration talk of a full investigation, this huge news is only surfacing now, and only thanks to Judicial Watch.

The news of FBI and Justice involvement in the IRS scandal makes the need for some special prosecutor to probe this mess even more obvious.

After all, as Judicial Watch’s Fitton asks: “How can the Justice Department and the FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

JW Exposes Smoking Gun Hillary Clinton Benghazi Email

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.” That is what President Calvin Coolidge said and that is what we continue to prove here at Judicial Watch, much to the consternation of Hillary Clinton.

We now have information about an email that directly ties Hillary Clinton, for the first time, to the now-debunked Benghazi talking points used by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a “spontaneous protest” gone awry. The Obama State Department fessed up to the existence of this email in a federal court filing. Showing contempt for transparency, the Obama State Department is refusing to divulge the contents of the email, citing a discretionary “deliberative process” privilege.

JW’s legal team filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit in July 2014 seeking records related to the drafting and use of the talking points. The lawsuit sought records specifically from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department staff about the Benghazi talking points scandal:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

The State Department then had to start producing documents and explanations about the reasons behind the withholding of any documents – which led to the July 7 State Department court filing with the astonishing news about the Hillary Clinton Benghazi email.

The State Department supposedly requested government-related emails from former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, and senior aide Jake Sullivan. Sullivan and Mills provided documents to the State Department responsive to Judicial Watch’s request on June 26. Abedin has yet to comply with the request from the State in Judicial Watch’s case. The Obama gang running the State Department and Justice Department refuse to provide any details about these new documents — which is another scandal. For instance, even though it is known that official State Department business was being conducted, the State Department is also refusing to disclose the email domain names of Clinton’s top aides: Mills, Sullivan and Abedin.

Yet, it gets even more interesting.

One of the Sullivan documents is an email chain from September 29, 2012, which discussed the talking points, and was originally included in the 55,000 pages of documents Clinton provided to the State Department. The initial email was sent to Clinton’s secret email account and to Mills, while the follow-up was sent by Mills to Sullivan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications Philippe Reines.

Remember what I said earlier about “persistence”? Stay with me; this is where the search for the truth runs into considerable opposition.

An unnamed agency staffer initially determined at an unknown time that a “talking points” email was not relevant to Judicial Watch’s request for emails about the Benghazi “talking points.” The Clinton email then was withheld from Judicial Watch. Confusingly, the State Department told the court this week that “the later message [turned over by Sullivan on June 26] in the email chain, which was not sent to former Secretary Clinton, made it clear that one portion of the earlier message had, indeed, been discussing the talking points given to Ambassador Rice.”

The State Department, nevertheless, is withholding the emails under the “deliberative process” exemption to FOIA disclosure. The “transparent” Obama administration tells the court that the release of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi email chain “could reasonably be expected to chill the frank deliberations that occur when senior staff are preparing points or other draft remarks for use by senior Department officials in addressing a matter of public controversy.” As I just told one media interviewer, I interpret this to mean “we can’t give out info about the Obama/Clinton Benghazi cover-up because doing so might scare future corrupt politicians from engaging in cover-ups.” (Recall that those now-debunked Benghazi talking points were used by Rice to claim that the attack was the result of a “spontaneous protest.” The Obama administration also sent false talking points about the attack to Congress.)

Despite these revelations, including an acknowledgement that top Clinton aide Huma Abedin may still produce documents, the State Department brazenly requests that the court simply dismiss Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, arguing that it has executed a “reasonable” search of agency records relevant to Judicial Watch’s request.

We have long argued that despite assertions to the contrary, the State Department has not executed a reasonable search of all documents relevant to Judicial Watch’s request. While the agency claims to have searched the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton, it has refused to recover and search the records kept by Mrs. Clinton on her “off-campus” email server. Per the Federal Records Act and other federal records laws, the State Department has a responsibility as a federal agency to obtain these records and search them in accordance with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

However, the State Department adamantly refuses to provide any information about Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of government records and why it never disclosed to the court or Judicial Watch that it knew Mrs. Clinton had taken these records. The State Department also refuses to take any steps to recover, preserve, and search all the emails on Hillary Clinton’s secret email server, which contains emails from multiple State officials, President Obama, and foreign leaders.

But because of our persistent legal pressure, the American people now have smoking gun proof of Clinton’s involvement in the false Benghazi “talking points” used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Only the pressure of our litigation exposed this extraordinary revelation and thwarted the State Department’s desperate cover-up of this information. The Obama administration wants to keep this astonishing talking points document secret. While this may serve the interests of Clinton’s political efforts, it is contrary to the rule of law and shows contempt for the people’s right to know.

In the meantime, State’s refusal to search the government records Hillary Clinton and her aides purloined demonstrates the need for intervention from the courts, not the dismissal of lawsuits seeking to preserve, recover, and search these hidden emails. Our efforts here demonstrate that we can’t even trust the State Department to disclose incriminating emails from Hillary Clinton it does have. It is urgent the rule of law be enforced at that rogue agency.

U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed in the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012. Several hours after the initial assault, a second terrorist attack took place targeting a different compound located just one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed in this second attack and 10 others were injured. Those four dead men and unheralded injured are mocked by the obstruction we face from Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration, but those heroes are vindicated when – as happened this week – our persistence uncovers more of the truth.